Muslim Heretics Conference

By Mshari Al-Zaydi

Mshari Al-Zaydi

A Saudi journalist and expert on Islamic movements and Islamic fundamentalism as well as Saudi affairs. Mshari is Asharq Al-Awsat’s opinion page Editor, where he also contributes a weekly column. Has worked for the local Saudi press occupying several posts at Al -Madina newspaper amongst others. He has been a guest on numerous news and current affairs programs as an expert on Islamic extremism.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to devote his life to religion and interfaith dialogue and using religion to spread peace and encourage economic development. These were his words at the inauguration of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation which took place in New York recently.

We do not know the extent of Blair’s credibility or the degree of success that he will enjoy in his heroic mission – notwithstanding his own zeal after embracing Catholicism following his departure from Downing Street. However, his expectation that religious faith will be of the same significance to the 21st century as political ideology was to the 20th century seemed convincing to many.

If we look, at least superficially, at the reasons behind current international tension ,, we would find that religion is a major cause whereby religious and cultural arguments are used to justify the tension.

Al Qaeda has set world tensions on fire and marked a watershed with the events of 9/11. The US government responded by launching an ‘ideological war’ against Islamic fundamentalism which was considered by the US’ opponents to be an open war against Islam as a religion and as a large segment of the world’s population. What took place between the lines as a result of this war was negligible; it was nothing but the ramifications and aftermath of this ‘ideological’ war - or religious war, if we want to speak more openly.

One cannot avoid this war of religions as it is everywhere we turn., More often than not, the causes of conflicts can be traced back to religion. As a result of the arguments presented to us by zealous intellectuals and preachers, we see this tension between us and the West as a new crusade, similar to those that Salahuddin Ayyubi led his armies against.

Owing to the West’s right-wingers and intelligentsia, we are viewed as nothing but groups of Islamic extremists that threaten the West’s international values and culture. As such, amidst this religious uproar, it is no longer possible to hear the voices of moderation or the sounds of coexistence and peace.

This is why King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz’s call for interfaith dialogue has an important role in this agitated world. The Saudi monarch, who called for interreligious discourse last March, has once again consolidated this call through practical action on the ground.

The Muslim World League, upon the instruction of the king, finalized its preparations for the ‘International Islamic Conference for Dialogue’ and paved the way for another comprehensive meeting between “the people of different religions and civilizations” worldwide. The seminars commenced last Wednesday under the auspices of King Abdullah in Mecca.

But why is this call and conference so pertinent? They are important for numerous reasons, some of which I have mentioned in a previous article; but most prominently because the state from which this call is issued is Saudi Arabia, home to the Holy Kaaba that all Muslims worldwide direct their prayers toward every day. It is the heart of Sunni Islam and an important country in the international energy market.

In a speech delivered by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy to the Saudi Shura [Consultative] Council in Riyadh last January, he spoke at length about the importance of interreligious dialogue and praised the role of Islamic civilization at its peak, particularly its intellectual and philosophical openness and its advancements before rationality faded.

Sarkozy also spoke about the meeting that took place between King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, and Pope Benedict XVI, the head of Catholic Church, and said that the meeting was more effective than hundreds of conferences in terms of the impact that it would have on the raging fire between Muslims and Christians.

Does this mean that the issue is a simple one that can easily be resolved? Absolutely not! The communication crisis and mistrust between the Muslim and Christian communities around the world are detrimental and “deep wounds have been inflicted on both sides”, as former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami once stated.

Khatami was one of the first leaders to meet with Pope Benedict XVI after the controversy that followed his infamous lecture in September 2006 in which he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor. Many Muslims regarded the speech as provocative. At the time, Khatami stated that Muslims and Christians must desist from using God’s name to stir up wars and breed hatred.

So, what is the meaning of interfaith dialogue and what is its objective? If dialogue is steered toward a religious discussion and ‘debate’ then it can only add more fuel to the fire of fanaticism, rather than achieve peace and communication.

In an Arab Christian online forum called ‘Islamic Dialogue Forum’ I came across an article entitled ‘Twelve reasons why I reject the Prophet of Islam’. Contrastingly, I found an Arab Islamic forum called ‘The Forum for Dialogue between Religions’ in which an article entitled ‘A Fatal Blow to Christianity’ was featured.

The concept of dialogue is shrouded in ambiguity. However, the conference in Mecca pledged that it would take into account the errors of previous forums and would focus on “establishing a solid foundation” for the concept of dialogue within Islam itself before tackling matters related to non-Muslims.

How can we debate with them when we cannot agree over what we want of them? Who will we hold dialogue with and how? And are we ready for dialogue when internally we reject tolerance among ourselves? These are important starting points and determinants that we must first be clear on if we are to achieve fruitful dialogue instead of public relations conferences between clerics.

One of the reasons behind the failure to build bridges between ourselves and others stems from an error in the starting point. Muslims are not required to preach about religion to others or to explain the ‘virtues’ of Islam because it is assumed that non-Muslims who debate with Muslims are already well-informed about Islam.

Perhaps some of us have admired the debates of Ahmed Deedat, a prominent Muslim promoter of interfaith dialogue, and others like him. However, they fail to change social realities on any level; both Muslims and Christians will continue to subsist.

Another significant matter is that we must preserve the religious minorities among ourselves, especially Christians, in order to solidify our investment in interreligious discourse at home.

Meanwhile, the presence of Christians and other religious communities in some states may help quell the intensity of religious extremism among some, by familiarizing the majority with the concept of sharing the same homeland, bound by patriotism, with minorities. This social reality is more effective than a thousand theoretical lessons in religious tolerance.

Therefore, the duty of the Muslims and Arabs is to protect and reassure the non-Muslim minorities among them. Many observers have warned about the phenomenon of Christian immigration from the Arab Levant to live abroad in what seems to be a Christian evacuation of the region, which is detrimental to diversity and tolerance.

Indeed, this matter elicited the concern of the Council of Catholic Patriarchs of the Orient, which issued a statement in October 2006 warning that the Christians of the Levant are “the connecting link between the Islamic civilization and the Christian one, and constructive dialogue is held between them.”

The recent occurrences in the religiously diverse state of Iraq are regretful; they have whittled down the number of Christians, Sabeans, and even Jews, of whom only seven remain, according to the New York Times.

Dialogue is a gateway into understanding and knowledge of the truth. If we enter through this gateway we can access a vast realm of humanitarian richness and effective communication between civilizations and cultures. With dialogue between civilizations and religions, extremists will never be able to spew their poison of religious hatred and wreak havoc on mankind.

Humans are made human by their interests, dreams and their pursuit for peace. A Muslim is someone who is in search of this peace and communication; however, he is confronted with hardships as his Muslim brethren use his religion against him while non-Muslims around the world unjustly demonize him and his religion.

The time has come for this humane individual and the moderates among other religions to speak.

J

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Members of a moderate Muslim sect were ordered by the government Monday to return to mainstream Islam or face possible imprisonment for insulting the country’s predominant religion.

Critics may see the step as a failure by the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to uphold the young democracy’s secular values as it struggles to define its Muslim identity after decades of dictatorship.

The vast majority of Indonesia’s Muslims are moderate, but in recent years an extremist fringe has grown louder. The government, which relies on the support of Islamic parties in Parliament, has been accused of caving in to their demands.

The document signed Monday by two Cabinet ministers and the attorney general “orders all Ahmadiyah followers to stop their activities” or face up to five years in prison.

Indonesia’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but many in the nation of 235 million consider it offensive that the sect does not recognize Muhammad as the last prophet.

“Is it still safe for us in this country?” Ahmadiyah spokesman Syamsir Ali said in an interview with national broadcaster tvOne. “Our houses are being targeted and those who don’t like us feel it is acceptable to spill our blood.”

Ali said he hopes Indonesia doesn’t “turn out to be like governments in the Middle East” where the movement is prohibited.

Hard-liners have attacked Ahmadiyah members and torched their mosques since the government said in April it was considering banning the faith. Several dozen religious tolerance activists were beaten at a rally in Jakarta just over a week ago while police stood by.

A spokesman for the radical Islamic Defenders’ Front — which has a long record of arson, stoning and vandalism against opponents and Western targets — said the decree falls short of its demands.

“It is not enough. We will keep up the struggle until the president orders the disbandment of Ahmadiyah,” he said in a telephone interview.

Earlier Monday, several thousands protesters wearing white Islamic robes and caps gathered outside the presidential palace to demand that the organization be outlawed.

The religion needs to be defended “from people who want to destroy Islam’s teachings,” said demonstrator Zairin, who like many Indonesian goes by a single name. The use of violence would be justified to force reluctant Ahmadiyah members to renounce their faith and “keep Islam pure,” he said.

Ahmadiyah, established in 1889 in Punjab, India, considers its founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet and messiah, counter to traditional Islamic teaching. Ahmadiyah has millions of members around the world, with an estimated 200,000 in Indonesia.

“As long as they say they are Muslim, they have to follow Islamic teaching that does not recognize the existence of another prophet after Muhammad,” Attorney General Hendarman Supanji told reporters in the capital.

Religious Affairs Minister Maftuh Basyuni, one of the ministers who signed the decree, said it “is not an intervention into someone’s faith, but to maintain order and safety.”

The decree also called on radicals “to restrain from violent acts against Ahmadiyah.”

AKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — Members of a moderate Muslim sect were ordered by the government Monday to return to mainstream Islam or face possible imprisonment for insulting the country’s predominant religion.

Critics may see the step as a failure by the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to uphold the young democracy’s secular values as it struggles to define its Muslim identity after decades of dictatorship.

The vast majority of Indonesia’s Muslims are moderate, but in recent years an extremist fringe has grown louder. The government, which relies on the support of Islamic parties in Parliament, has been accused of caving in to their demands.

The document signed Monday by two Cabinet ministers and the attorney general “orders all Ahmadiyah followers to stop their activities” or face up to five years in prison.

Indonesia’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but many in the nation of 235 million consider it offensive that the sect does not recognize Muhammad as the last prophet.

“Is it still safe for us in this country?” Ahmadiyah spokesman Syamsir Ali said in an interview with national broadcaster tvOne. “Our houses are being targeted and those who don’t like us feel it is acceptable to spill our blood.”

Ali said he hopes Indonesia doesn’t “turn out to be like governments in the Middle East” where the movement is prohibited.

Hard-liners have attacked Ahmadiyah members and torched their mosques since the government said in April it was considering banning the faith. Several dozen religious tolerance activists were beaten at a rally in Jakarta just over a week ago while police stood by.

A spokesman for the radical Islamic Defenders’ Front — which has a long record of arson, stoning and vandalism against opponents and Western targets — said the decree falls short of its demands.

“It is not enough. We will keep up the struggle until the president orders the disbandment of Ahmadiyah,” he said in a telephone interview.

Earlier Monday, several thousands protesters wearing white Islamic robes and caps gathered outside the presidential palace to demand that the organization be outlawed.

The religion needs to be defended “from people who want to destroy Islam’s teachings,” said demonstrator Zairin, who like many Indonesian goes by a single name. The use of violence would be justified to force reluctant Ahmadiyah members to renounce their faith and “keep Islam pure,” he said.

Ahmadiyah, established in 1889 in Punjab, India, considers its founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet and messiah, counter to traditional Islamic teaching. Ahmadiyah has millions of members around the world, with an estimated 200,000 in Indonesia.

“As long as they say they are Muslim, they have to follow Islamic teaching that does not recognize the existence of another prophet after Muhammad,” Attorney General Hendarman Supanji told reporters in the capital.

Religious Affairs Minister Maftuh Basyuni, one of the ministers who signed the decree, said it “is not an intervention into someone’s faith, but to maintain order and safety.”

The decree also called on radicals “to restrain from violent acts against Ahmadiyah.”

The Associated Press: Muslim sect told to return to mainstream Islam

God and Man at Dartmouth

I chuckled to myself wondering what William F. Buckley, the author of the landmark conservative tract God and Man at Yale, might have thought of this year’s Baccalaureate Service at Dartmouth College. In addition to Christian hymns and Bible readings, there was a Native American prayer offered in the Yuchi language, and recitations from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

The main speaker – yours truly – was a Muslim.

One theme of Buckley’s classic work is that God should be at the center of people’s intellectual journeys, and therefore should play a far more significant role on campus. And when Buckley spoke of God at Yale, he meant the Protestant idea of God. (According to a recent New Yorker piece by George Packer, Buckley refused to promote David Brooks - now at The New York Times - past a certain stage at his National Review because he was not a “believing Christian”.)

Buckley would be happy to know that religion is once again being taken seriously on college campuses, but one of the reasons is because of the diversity of traditions present. Jews, Catholics and Protestants have had an institutional presence on campuses for many years, and colleges (including Wellesley, Duke, Princeton, Brown and Georgetown) are increasingly hiring Muslim chaplains to minister to the growing numbers of Muslim students on campus. Dartmouth has all of the above, plus the first ZaZen Chaplain I’ve ever met on a college campus.

Dartmouth, like many other campuses, also has a staff person specifically devoted to organizing interfaith projects, in the recognition that fragmentation around faith too easily leads to dangerous division.

I spent some time talking with the Al Nur Muslim Student Group at Dartmouth. The President is a white convert, as is the Muslim Chaplain. Of the four women present, two were of African ancestry, one of South Asian heritage, and one was ethnically mixed. Some wore headscarves, some didn’t. One graduate was going back home to Lahore where she planned to become a teacher, and another was heading off to Germany on a Fulbright to study religious identity and citizenship there.
David Horowitz had made a high profile visit to Dartmouth this past fall, as part of IslamoFascism Awareness Week, and I was interested in how Al Nur had responded to that.

The only way they could, they told me: by organizing “IslamoFashion Awareness Week”.

College campuses are one place that a “big tent Islam” is being built – a community that welcomes all Muslims regardless of theological school, ethnic background or level of observance. The encounter between these different interpretations produces a space of remarkable dynamism and creativity. People ask questions they would never have thought to ask before, and develop answers far more sophisticated than the ones they are accustomed to giving.

The same is true for faith on campus, period. One of the frustrations of my own college experience is that religion was rarely a part of the discussion, either as a personal matter, or as part of the broader discourse on multiculturalism. That’s changing, both because students are reporting that spiritual concerns are indeed important to them and because religion is all over the front pages of newspapers and students need to know something about it as they enter the real world.
I share with most progressives a commitment to inclusion, and I share with Buckley a commitment to tradition. The new trend of taking faith seriously on campus amidst diversity should make both camps happy, largely because it is being done with an eye towards pluralism.

As Diana Eck, America’s most widely-read scholar of religious diversity (who, incidentally, began her observations of the changing religious landscape at her own university, Harvard), notes about pluralism - it is not simply an acceptance of diversity, but a direct engagement of that diversity, including a serious understanding and commitment to the tradition you come from yourself.

Please e-mail On Faith if you’d like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a

Eboo Patel: God and Man at Dartmouth - On Faith at washingtonpost.com